I'm trying to be kind at the moment - the title including reference to Baptist history is the 'look away now' hint to anyone who finds this topic boring or irrelevent or who is hanging on (for another 4 years at least) for the final punch line of my research.
Reading is way behind schedule - if I ever really had one, and that's probably part of the problem - but some thoughts and questions are beginning to seep through the morrasse of words lodged somewhere in my brain - and once in a while a half-sophisticated sentence flits by!
In search of a hero?
Why do all the histories I read spend so much time and energy on Helwys and Smyth? After all, not only are the writers keen to deny any connection to Dutch Anabaptists, these two guys were also in the 'wrong' strand of Baptists - you know, those heretic, biblicist, unitarian-becoming Generals. The only answer I can up with is that there is some kind of implicit longing for a Founding Father - and yes, it must be a he. If the Methodists - all variations there of - can claim Wesley - them Baptists seem to feel they need one too. Since it seems they can't find a nice Particular Baptist, and since the beginnings of the Generals are slightly earlier - which is oh, so important in asserting your non-conformist credentials - it seems Helwys and Smyth will do nicely.
Biblicism and Downgrading
The General Baptists, who constantly sought scriptural warrant for what they did or didn't do, were accused pejoratively of Biblicism. By the time Charles Haddon Spurgeon appeared and opposed biblical criticism, he was right and the other Particular Baptists were 'downgrading' (discuss). Whether CHS was a Biblicist or not, it feels as I read that the portrayal is very different in the two cases.
Synthesis
The story feels very synthetic. I have read it numerous times now, and have in my mind the diagram given to us by tutor tasked with teaching it to us. The aim seems to be to tell one Baptist story, which has a clear origin, linked to a Founding Father, a clear trajectory, suitably illustrated with heroes (99.9% men) and sweeps away any rough edges or uneven splicing along the way. Whilst many of the writers do begin with the two strands - and criticse Goadby for failing to do so adequately - I'm still left with a sense almost that the Generals were a necessary phase to be gone through, that the New Connexion was never really significant and that some of the Strict groupings are simply irrelevant. I think that it is a valiant undertaking, and one that any composite organisation I know of tries to do, but I am not sure it is entirely helpful since the rules of orthodoxy seem to keep changing.
Eye Witnesses?
Bockmeuhl (see earlier posts) seems to assert the priority of early over later written texts, giving 'living memory' greater credence to that which comes from studying and reflecting upon older material. If this thesis is correct, then whatever 20th century writers fell, Goadby's four volume enterprise (of which a reprint is sitting in my 'to get aorund to reading' heap at the moment) should be treated more seriously and his alleged muddling of General and Particular Baptists might actually be a more authentic reflection of what was. I guess it is probably a 'Modern,' 'scientific' mindset that makes us try to distil out which was what, and part of me likes that, but Goadby's pre- or early Modern approach is none the less valid, and might offer, for example, new insights on Baptist diversity in a nonpejorative fashion. Further, if we really are Post Modern, we can no longer simply assert 'later is better' (Modern world view) or 'earlier is better' (slight parody of text criticism methods) rather, each offer us some insights. Of course, the difficulty then is what to do when/if the conflicts arise - who does one believe and why? Is there just a danger that some new synthesis arises based on a different set of assumptions?
Who is reading this?
Trying to identify an implied reader - amd wondering how much I am creating this person in my own image!
Reading Underwood I very quickly got a sense of an earnest young man, possibly attracted by the lure of pecuniary advantage (since so many of heroes did very nicely thank you) lving at or aorund the time of World War 2, Questions of nationalism and the legitimacy of taking arms may have been relevant, fear of being accused of being a 'Bolshie' and admiration for Mr Churchill are all hinted at. Whilst it is hard to imagine a readership far beyond Underwood's ministeral students, I could see a lay reader also being sympathetic to what is written. And my picutre of Underwood's implied reader seems tofit broadly with Bockmeuhl's five theses (see earlier post).
Reading Hayden (CTP edition) my picture of the implied reader is very different. I find myself envisaging someone doing this module because they have to; that it is a hoop to be gone through. The wide use of pictures and cartoons - some of questionable relevance - feels like an attmept at accessibility, of making a dull subject a bit less so. This may be an unfair criticism, since other books in the series also make extensive use of illustrations. But you wouldn't spend money on getting the illustrations put in if you didn't intend them to be there - so is this a reader who needs to be jollied along? At one level, I like the 'to think about' boxes, because they encourage the reader ro try to relate what is being read to their own situation. But, again, what does this say about the reader? Is this a kind of 'Every Day with Roger' approach to Baptist history? Is it that the reader either will not, or cannot make the connections? I have not - as yet - reviewed these boxes properly, but there must be questions about the questions asked. Like Underwood, who he criticises for it, Hayden uses lots of stories of people and churches to illustrate his themes. Apart from the Generals, whose chapter ends with a sketch of a meeting house with a 'For Sale' sign, the stories are upbeat and 'successful' (though check out 2007 membership figures for some of those churches...) suggesting a reader who will be, or who needs to be, inspired by them. reading this book, I wonder if, contra Bockmeuhl (that's my half sophisticated bit) we have an implied reader who is unsympathetic and who needs to convinved not only to read the book but that its subject matter matters.
History or Baptist Principles?
Hayden's book has a tricky task - it serves as a text on history and principles. The chapters on Baptist principles frustrated me greatly because they seemed to contain neither history nor theology. As such, they failed, for me, to address the 'why' of any of our practices. Whilst the broadly ordinance theology that underlies what he says is fine by me, it is my reading of historical struggles and theological questions that has brought me to where I am. Words to the general effect of 'Baptism and Communion are sacraments but not means of special grace' are really not everso helpful whatever your view. Similar skipping over of church governance, authority of scripture etc, seems to me to suggest a reader who has this all sewn up and whose feathers are to be smoothed. I'm sure the author worked hard on these chapters, and I really enjoyed reading the original quotations on communion praxis, but they don't to me feel 'right' in this book. I suspect simlar criticisms could/should be leveled against the history chapters themselves, but the trajectory and key themes feel more in line with more detailed works.
What next?
Need a supervisor discussion (next week) but actually writing down what I've got whirling in my head already is quite helpful. What I think I have deduced so far is
- English Baptist history tends to be a synthesis, with rules changed to fit the overall trajecotry being assigned.
- There seems to be a clear desire to identify a Founding Father (or two) and some big-name heroes inluding, in no particular order, Spurgeon, Bunyan (even if shared with Congregationalists), Carey, Hall, Shakespeare (John Howard, not William!) and, if a later author at least one of Whitley and Payne.
- Baptists are male. The deaconesses do eventually get mentioned along with the Zenana missionaries - but no one ever writes about Miss Timmins and Miss Renant (too of the Zenana missionaires I discovered when writing my history essays on Baptist women; note how neither has a first name). Just once in a blue moon Anne Steele (hymnwriter) or Margaret Jarman get mentioned.
- Whilst I believe Roger Hayden does try to make a connection bewteen then and now, overall I detect very little evidence to suggest that the writer or reader expects or attempts this connection. The idea that understanding the past might inform the present and shape the future just is not there. Which might explain why the chapters on Baptist principles failed to inspire me.
I'm sure I could waffle a good 6k words on this, but I'll need to get some literature to back up my thoughts. I'd also like to read Roger Hayden's second edition to see what has changed.
If I put this "delightful" Victorian image in the centre of a composite of Bappy worthies will that do?!